The Militant Atheists: A Case of Bad Intention
Unless you have deliberately turned off every last electronic device in your house, you’ve probably heard about Richard Dawkins’ embarrassing slip up this week.
On radio 4, he’d been championing a poll run by his organization, The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science, which showed that many people who call themselves Christian do not believe in some of the most basic of Christian doctrines, read the Bible or go to church.
In a debate with Giles Fraser, former Canon Chancellor of St. Paul’s Cathedral, Dawkins was arguing that such people were not entitled to call themselves Christian if they don’t accept the doctrines of the church.
‘An astonishing number couldn’t identify the first book in the New Testament,’ he said - proof positive, to his mind, that they had no right to call themselves Christians.
Fraser’s response was that using a few ‘trick questions to trip people up’ wasn’t fair, and didn’t address the real point: the broad church that is spiritual faith, but Dawkins wasn’t having any of it.
Whoops
So Fraser asked him, ‘If I said to you what is the full title of ‘The Origin of Species,’ I’m sure you could tell me that.’
Dawkins, replied, ‘Yes, I could.’
‘Go on, then,’ Fraser said.
Dawkins replied, a bit testily, ‘On The Origin of Species. . . Uh, with. Oh, God. On The Origin of Species. There is a subtitle with respect to the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life.’
The exact words failed him.
‘You’re the high pope of Darwinism,’ cried Fraser. ‘If you asked people who believe in evolution that question and you came back and said 2 per cent got it right, it would be terribly easy for me to go, “they don’t believe it after all.” It’s just not fair to ask people these questions. They self-identify as Christians and I think you should respect that.’
Dawkins went away and licked his wounds on his own website, claiming to have been ‘ambushed’ by the question. (The full title of Darwin’s tome is, by the way, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.)
Careful ambushes
Dawkins is himself famous for setting up just these kinds of ambushes for those with beliefs different to his. Not long ago, I was asked to be on a television show with him as host. The producers swore up and down that this would be a fair debate and I would have the opportunity to present the evidence that supports my work.
My husband smelled a rat, and urged me not to participate.
My friend Rupert Sheldrake did start filming with Dawkins at his home. During the interview, Dawkins refused to allow him to put forward his evidence. Sheldrake stopped the filming and asked why not, to which Dawkins replied that the show was intended to be a ‘high-grade debunking exercise.’ Sheldrake escorted him out the door, and lucky for it. The end product was aired under the title: ‘Enemies of Reason.’
The opposite effect
What’s most interesting here is not simply the spectacle of the bully getting his comeuppance. It is the fact that all this recently self-proclaimed ‘militant atheism’ is having exactly the opposite effect to what is intended.
It is, in my view, a case of bad intention.
There’s plenty of good evidence to show that bad thoughts, as well as good ones, can have an effect on the world – and indeed sometimes are more powerful of the two.
Nevertheless, Dawkins and his band of sceptics and atheists are a bit like the pharmaceutical industry, not content simply to offer their wares, but out to pulverize the opposition.
The problem is that this kind of broadside intention to kill often simply backfires.
We know, for instance with healing, the most effective approach is not to destroy the source of the illness, but to move aside, let go of the outcome, and allow a greater intelligence to restore order. Without this careful approach, destructive intentions often blow up in one’s face.
In the case of alternative medicine, under the broadside attack of the most profitable industry on earth, it continues to flourish and grow. For some years now, in both America and Europe many more visits are paid to alternative practitioners than to doctors.
United against secularism
Several decades ago, the various religions and Christian denominations were in disarray, at war with other religions and dying on their feet. Left to their own devices, it appeared that the Christian church might simply quietly expire for lack of interest and attendance.
However, the militant atheists have put the fire in the belly of the churches. No less than the Queen, who is the Supreme Governor of the Anglican church, thought it necessary to appear before a gathering of the leaders of the nine main faiths in Britain this week and defend the ‘significant position’ of the church in the life of the nation.
Her point was that the broadness of the church lends religion a great sense of tolerance. The notion of faith is a glue that holds society together.
All nine faiths have put aside differences and are united in their belief in taking a stand against secularism and in the right of each one of us to believe in whatever spirituality we choose.
The right to the miraculous
What they were defending was the right of all of us to have faith, to have a miraculous view of the world, and not simply the world according to Richard Dawkins.
In America, the latest Gallup poll shows that the percentage of people who claim to be Christian of some variety is down by 13 points since 1948, but the percentage of people who claim an ‘other’ religion is up by 9 points – higher than the increase among those claiming to be atheists. Essentially, people’s desire for something beyond the material world has hardly changed in 60 years.
Whether you believe him to be the son of God or the son of man (as he himself once declared), Jesus obviously knew a thing or two about the power of intention.
Ironically, Larry Dossey once wrote that one of the most powerful antidotes to negative intention was the line in the Lord’s Prayer: ‘deliver us from evil.’
Richard Dawkins would do well to study the words – as well as the words Shakespeare gave Hamlet to deliver to his ‘rational’ friend Horatio: ‘There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio than are dreamt of in your philosophy.’
eNewsletter Signup
9/11 Peace Experiment
 |
Comments
Posted On
Feb 17, 2012Posted By
Thank you for another great post. I think you really nailed it again! Specifically with respect to Richard Dawkins, I urge you to read Bruce Sanguin’s post: Thank You Richard Dawkins, Now Lets Ride The Magic Spiral Together. This is another, and I think very insightful, take on Dawkins’ place in this debate. And, sort of on the same tangent, sometime I would also love to see your thoughts about how the so-called “Religious Right” seem to claim some kind of exclusivity over the idea of being a Christian.
Posted On
Feb 17, 2012Posted By
Great post ? This has absolutely no factually relevant evidence supporting the superstitions that she peddles.
Faith used to "justify" faith ?
I would be embarassed if a primary school child tried that; with a supposed "journalist" this is Aprl 1st "journalism".
Posted On
Feb 18, 2012Posted By
The archetypical scientist of the 20th century, Albert Einstein, felt moved to say, "There are two ways to live your life: you can live as if nothing is a miracle or you can live as if everything is a miracle." Surely the frenzied argument from Dawkins and other scientism fundamentalists that "nothing is a miracle" proves that theirs is a limited, incomplete and polarised perspective derived from a determined incomprehension of the larger picture.
Like any fundamentalism, Dawkins, et al. should only attract a healthy skepticism to their myopic assertions.
Posted On
Feb 17, 2012Posted By
Charlatan "journalism" supporting charlatan industries.
How appropropriate.
Posted On
Feb 17, 2012Posted By
How can one believe in Jesus? Nowhere is there any historical proof whatsoever that he ever existed. "The world's sixteen crucified saviors" by Kersey Graves is a great read, should you bother stop playing idiotic games.
Posted On
Mar 07, 2012Posted By
Frank - What a sad little man you are!
Posted On
Mar 07, 2012Posted By
Projection?
Posted On
Apr 02, 2012Posted By
That's not true......there is more evidence (excluding the bible) that Jesus existed and was executed than there is for Julius Caesar ever having existed. What is disputed is whether he was the son of God and rose from the dead. Please do your research before making a sweeping statement like this.
Posted On
Feb 17, 2012Posted By
The article vindicates everything that Richard talks about.
The irrelevance of the article epitomises the failures of superstitions such as religion and homeopathy.
The very thing that Dawkins attacks is the LACK OF RELEVANT EVIDENCE to support a belief.
Instead of providing evidence all we have is irrelevant ad hominmen.
This merely reinforces the dawkins message and highlights the desperation of the ignorant bigots who steadfastedly cling to and peddle their superstitions.
Oh for science in schools, and even more so, in journalism; the article proves that t is desperately needed.
Posted On
Feb 17, 2012Posted By
Thank you Lynne. I feel saddened that people feel a need to attack/expose/debate/disprove someone else's spiritual beliefs. What a waste of time and energy. Who's "right"? I don't care. I know what I know and I believe what I believe. And that's all *I* need to be concerned with.
Posted On
Feb 17, 2012Posted By
If you feel saddened that people feel a need to attack/expose/debate/disprove someone else's spiritual beliefs, STOP spreading that nonsense around.
Posted On
Feb 19, 2012Posted By
Hey Frank isn´t that Liberty´s...liberty
Posted On
Feb 17, 2012Posted By
Both religion and atheism are anchored in the ancient cosmology that has long since disappeared. We are in the midst of a shift of worldviews that is following the discovery of the evidence of an original flaring out of the energy that developed into the universe.
The religious view comes from a pre-scientific worldview. The atheistic view is tethered to the anthropomorphic depiction of the divine. Both are inadequate to the re-imagining of the earth that is necessary in our time.
Posted On
Feb 17, 2012Posted By
Well spoken, L.McT. It's a pleasure to read such a clear presentation.
Posted On
Feb 17, 2012Posted By
It seems to be a human need to fight against those who have different views on philosophy, religion etc.
I belong to a group of expats living on Mount Etna in Sicily. We are from all over the Western hemisphere and no-one ever talks about religion but occasionally politics, but not to convert anyone to a particular belief.
We all get along fine in our various languages and beliefs and support each other as far as we can.
Why can't others do the same and not try to impose their beliefs and lifestyle on the rest of the world?
Posted On
Feb 17, 2012Posted By
I am really glad you wrote this. This dynamic, the grammar that supports it is in evidence so often and it is like something completely normalized in the terrain of life. I really admire how you dont shrink in your response to it. it needs more oxygen and more detail so that people like me kind have the talent and 'nous' to respond effectively. A very big heartfelt thankyou for what you model!!! i actually need an anti-shrink protocol for these kinds of things if i am to come out of my tight closet.
Posted On
Feb 17, 2012Posted By
Philosophers today may balk at the notion of a spiritual existent that the mystic takes on faith. However I believe that science will eventually discover and support the concept of a spiritual realm or dimension, and chart out its relationship to the known physical/material world, using such devices as mathematics and more advanced instruments of inquiry.
Posted On
Feb 18, 2012Posted By
It is remarkable that Christian fundamentalists see Christ's philosophy as supporting an exclusive right wing agenda, when he was clearly preaching socialism.
Posted On
Feb 18, 2012Posted By
Thank you, Lynne. The atheist troll that you attracted with this post simply proved your point. The problem we have is with fundamentalists , both religious and atheist. They don't want to think deeply, just argue. The atheists will not even acknowledge that there's a spectrum of spirituality - the ancient old man in the sky god is so much easier to rebut. I think the meeting ground is in understanding consciousness. As Rumi said, "Out there, beyond right and wrong, there is a field. I will meet you there."
Posted On
Feb 19, 2012Posted By
It always fills me with wonder why the atheists bother to take the trouble try and convince others that a religion is invalid and that there is no god. If the are so correct, then why bother after all? No harm, besides death, can come to them in the end. Of course, Dawkins makes a pretty penny and fame with it all.
Conversely, we have the believers, who, disunited in their religions, find it intolerable that someone, somewhere, may not contribute to the numbers who pay lip-service to their beliefs. What do they have to loose in the end? The death of an unbeliever. One would think that that would be their god's problem, but no, it's too much fun to participate in the purposefully contrived intrigue instigated by the powerful.
Then we have the one that runs away with the pot of gold at the behest of the controller: Lynn McTaggart.
Having read Lynn's books (admittedly interesting), It is humerous that she would perpetuate this kind of debate and that so many fall for it.
Posted On
Mar 11, 2012Posted By
burberry outlet burberry outlet
burberry scarf outlet burberry scarf outlet
burberry scarf burberry scarves
burberry scarves burberry scarves
RSS feed for comments to this post.